Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Judy Rebick's avatar

Nora. This comes very close to saying you support this shooting. I don’t think you do but it is the suggestion. The rest of the column is great but I’m hesitating to share it because of the last couple of lines.

Expand full comment
Roy Brander's avatar

There's no place for violence in politics - by definition.

I thought that "political science" 101 was that there are three classes of decision-making:

- "Scientific" decisions usually are controlled by the "science" of accounting. "Buy or lease?" Everybody agrees because the right answer can actually be proved.

- "Political" decisions are when people can't clearly agree one thing is best, and must compromise, reach agreement by discussion.

- If discussion FAILS, then the third, the default, is the decision goes to the winner of physical conflict.

When Mr. Trump stopped agreeing, when he did not agree that the decision-making system (election) was accepted, violence broke out immediately - politics having just failed.

Nora's point is of course that, having been peacefully elected, the winner of the politics is free to get down to applying State violence to (perceived) enemies abroad, and even troublesome citizens at home. In our names!

Nora's last line could have been that "The jumps from tender care for the candidates, to the cold shoulder for violence to others, is - how can I put it - head-spinning".

Expand full comment
11 more comments...

No posts